By the Court.—Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Suresh Singh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2006 of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.

3. The appellant-writ petitioner was appointed as Peon on compassionate ground in the year 1993. It is alleged that the appointment as Peon was accepted by the appellant under protest since he was qualified to be appointed as Assistant Teacher. The writ petition was filed in the year 2005 by the appellant claiming appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment took the view that the writ petitioner having approached belatedly he is not entitled for any relief.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant, challenging the said judgment, contended that the right to receive appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher accrued by virtue of the amendment dated 2.2.1995 in Regulations 101 to 103 of Chapter-III framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. He has placed reliance on a judgment of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8638 of 2004,Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, dated 4.3.2004. He submits that by the aforesaid judgment the learned Single Judge created an exception with regard to those compassionate appointees who habr accepted appointment under protest prior to 2.2.1995. He further submits that in view of the above judgment dated 4.3.2004 the appellant was fully entitled for appointment as Assistant Teacher.

5. Learned Standing Counsel, refuting the submissions of Counsel for the appellant, contended that appellant having once accepted the appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1993, he has no right to claim appointment on teaching post second time. He placed reliance on judgments of the Apex Court in 1995 SCC (L & S) 10: State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh and 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 661, State of M.P. and others v. Ramesh Kumar Sharma.

6. We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

7. The appellant accepted the appointment in the year 1993 on compassionate ground as Peon. Regulations 101 to 107 of Chapter-III, as existing at the relevant time, entitled any dependant of deceased employee to receive appointment on any non-teaching post. Consequently the appellant was appointed on Class-IV post which was accepted by him. Much emphasis has been given by the Counsel for the appellant on the fact that the appellant had accepted the appointment under protest, hence his right still survives to receive consideration for appointment on teaching post by virtue of amendment made in the regulations on 2.2.1995.

8. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to note the concept of accepting appointment under protest. The submission of the appellant is that the appointment as Peon was under protest. The word “protest” has been defined in Oxford Dictionary as “accepting something unwillingly”.

9. The protest with regard to an action can only mean acceptance without giving up any of the rights of a person protesting to an action. The protest is a conscious act which is made after fully knowing the rights of the person making protest. The word “protest” would mean that the person protesting had knowledge of his rights on the date when protest was lodged. Coming to the facts of the present case, in the present case the appointment was accepted in the year 1993. Admittedly the amendment in the regulation was made on 2.2.1995 permitting compassionate appointment on a teaching post also. There being no such right with the appellant in the year 1993 to claim appointment on a teaching post, there cannot be any concept of accepting the appointment under protest claiming for a higher appointment. The submission of the appellant’s Counsel that appointment was made under protest is a submission without any substanc